If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No it's not, but they are fairly closely linked in current society, most parents did concieve and give birth.
Yes, which is entirely my point - just because something is the norm now, doesn't make it "natural".
As for my point about whether a rocky straight couple are better than a gay couple, well, what I meant was:
I understand you think that if all things were the same, but one couple was straight and one was gay, the straight should be given the priority. Ok, I'm not sure I agree (I'm not sure I disagree either, kind of undecided, if it's a loving home then...) but I understand. But I was thinking, assume there are two straight couples, one is more suitable than the other because of age / health and other criteria. Now imagine that the more suitable couple is infact gay. Who now gets preference?
Say there is only 5 years difference, what then if it's 20 years difference?
What if it's 20 years difference, the straight couple with a history of poor health and a low income?
And so on, where is the line drawn that the straight couple is too unsuitable to be given the priveledge of adopting a child, and hence it falls to the otherwise perfectly suitable homosexual couple?
The "nuclear" family is only 60 years old. Hetrosexual breeding among humans (cro-magnons) is 40,000 years old.
Things that are in the "norm" are transient. Breeding between males and females are not.
But if we assume that we evolved from monkeys, it can be seen even now that monkeys will 'adopt' young if the mother dies. And sometimes even several of them will 'share' the caring of the young. Whether it's natural for someone to be a parent or not is one matter, but I'm not sure it's so important to this debate...
Two main issues:
- are homosexual parents appropriate / fitting to adopt? I think of course they are
- should the church be allowed to stop it's adoption service because the government is passing legislation that compells them to treat all elligible parents the same? Of course they should, but in doing so they're being a bit horrid about it. They can say what they like about their beliefs but endangering the welfare of children is something Jesus would probably be more miffed about than consorting with gays. But everyone is allowed to interpret their religion differently. It's quite scary that the people in charge of the Catholic Church in this country think that excluding homosexuals is more important to them than giving children a good home - especially when you consider probably only a fraction of all the children they look after will go to a homosexual home.
I repeat
I repeat (again!)
Sorry dude, you know me when I'm pissed. :crazyeyes
What right?
Define "natural". Define the "nuclear family". Define "recent"- certainly having a family unit with a male and a female is something that's been around for a lot longer than fifty years, isn't it?
Gays cannot conceive, ergo gays cannot be parents. It's been proven time and time and time again that the best way to raise children is in stable family with a mother and a father- not a single mother, not a single father, and not two fathers. I reckon single parents are better than gay parents. It ain't rocket science. Therefore gays should be right at the back of the queue.
How about those of mixed race? Kids are likely to get some stick at school from it.
It's a lot more complex than who is ideal or less than ideal. Some gay couples and some single parents would be far better adoptive parents than some straight couples (and of course the other way around). That is why everybody should be considered and every case asserted individually.
Well I suppose if you're putting the kid first yes you do go for the wealthier couple and if you got mixed race kids a mixed race couple would seem the ideal first choice...
Kids are also likely to get stick at school for having two daddies as well...
Given there is a lack of adoptive parents gays should be considered, but let's not pretend that it's an ideal choice and if there is a hetrosexual couple in 99% of cases the kid is better with them.
But basing it on 'nature'... Surely then infertile couples, or people with disabilities should not be allowed to adopt.
So a single straight parent is better than two gay parents who can keep double watch over the care, development and financial wellbeing of a child?
Well said.
See you in hell, eh? I'll buy you a drink down there!
Eeh, do we expect more from such an organisation in all fairness people, it is now lead by the Hitler Youth, let's face it.
Thier track record isn't much better than this.
Yeah exactly, you reckon. Well a hunch from you, or the Catholic church, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't give them the right to discriminate against an entire group of people.
Yes, he came from a family so anti-Nazi his Dad was sacked from the police under Hitler and was lucky to avoid a concentration camp. And the Hitler Youth wasn't like the Boy Scouts where you volunteer to go along. He was a conscript.
I'm not the one appealing to "nature" to support my argument.
Nuclear family - mum, dad & kids. As opposed to the extended family or going much further back, or to other cultures, kids being looked after by the community, not just the parents (some travelling communities for example).
No shit, Sherlock.
There you go again, conflating parenting with conception and giving birth.
Proven by whom?
I was waiting for someone to crack open that old chestnut.
1. Infertile couples can only not conceive naturally because their bodies are, for want of a better phrase, defective. A gay man can never mother a child; a lesbian can never sire a child. It is an important consideration.
2. Many disabled people aren't suitable to be adoptive parents. I don't think anyone would be arguing if I was saying that Down's adults wouldn't be the ideal choice to be parents, would they.
I wouldn't have an outright ban simply because there are more children than prospective adopters, but gays should be at the back of the queue.
A straight man can never mother a child either. Oh and lesbians can sire a child quite easily. I've known a few lesbian mothers and children thereof.
Using a turkey baster isn't the same thing, is it.
*yawn*
Moral Maze - Radio 4 - Catholic Adoption Row
It was cited that gay adoptive parents in Norway are five times less likely to split up than heterosexual couples. They've also the best track record with the placement of hard to place children.
cough*IVF*cough
I'm yet to see a single study that says same-sex couples are worse off than straight couples in any way.
Not that it matters though because at the end of the day some people are good parents and some people are not, and their sexual orientation has bugger all to do with it.
Given the lack of evidence (not many gays adopt) its not really that fair a comparison. Especially as I couldvery easily, and very unfairly, point to the number of Civil Partnerships that have already failed.
Anyway, I said four pages ago that I didn't want to get into the merits of gay adoption, because the argument is tedious and you're not going to convince me I'm wrong and I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong.
Apart from possibly having a few 'personal' examples, do you have any statistics to counteract the Norwegian numbers then?
As a matter on interest, are you views on gay adoption personal - or are they in line with your Catholic beliefs?
Same thing as what? You stated that lesbians can't sire a child. You're wrong. Get over it.